Communicated on 2 October 2019

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 4099/12 Ä°hya Tamer YEÄžER against Turkey lodged on 8 December 2011

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application mainly concerns the applicant ’ s trial and conviction in absentia on the charge of issuing an uncovered cheque. He complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the infringement of his right to be present at the court during the proceedings and to defend himself in person, and of his inability to appeal his conviction upon becoming aware of the judgment against him . He also complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that he had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty on the basis of a judgment that failed to comply with due process.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant, who claims not to have been notified of the charges against him and who was tried and convicted in absentia , have a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, §§ 81-107, ECHR 2006 ‑ II, and M.T.B. v. Turkey , no. 47081/06 , §§ 47-64, 12 June 2018 )? In particular;

(a) Was the applicant duly notified of the criminal proceedings instituted against him?

(b) Could the applicant be said to have expressly or through his own conduct waived his right to appear and defend himself before the court (see, M.T.B. , cited above, §§ 49-50)?

(c) Did the domestic authorities show the requisite diligence in their efforts to locate the applicant and to inform him about the criminal proceedings against him ( ibid., §§ 51-53) ?

(d) Did the applicant have the opportunity to obtain a fresh determination of the merits of the charge against him, in respect of both law and fact, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 61 and 62)?

2. In connection with the issues noted in the above question, was the applicant unduly denied of his right of access to court provided under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, particularly in connection with the refusal of leave to appeal?

3. Was the applicant ’ s conviction, and ensuing imprisonment, the result of proceedings which were a “flagrant denial of justice”, that is, were they “manifestly contrary to the provisions of Article 6 or the principles embodied therein”, with the effect of rendering his detention pursuant to Article 5 § 1 (a) unjustified under the Convention (see, Stoichkov v. Bulgaria , no. 9808/02, §§ 51 ‑ 59, 24 March 2005 and the cases cited therein, and Gumeniuc v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 48829/06, § § 17-26, 16 May 2017)?